I Jesus knew he was going to rise again, why would his death be a sacrifice?

Question

It's like he didn't really die for Christians' sins; he endured a couple of days of intense pain. However, I've seen people dying of cancer bear worse anguish before they perish, and they don't expect to rise again. I'm not saying Jesus didn't suffer, but it's not exactly like it was the worst case in history. If he knew he was going to be resurrected, where's the sacrifice?

SORRY: It's supposed to read,

"IF JESUS KNEW HE WAS GOING TO RISE AGAIN...."

Answer 1

Because he had to move back in with his parents.

Answer 2

Maybe he didn't exactly know. It seems that he had some kind of idea, just as we have some kind of idea that we will rise after death. Sure we believe it, but if I were asked to sacrifice my life for somebody, I'm sure I would be troubled about it. In fact, Jesus cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" So he must have felt the full effect of having to die painfully. This is speculation. I expect, though, that God also appreciates our speculations.

Answer 3

Jesus sacrifice is once and for all the only way for a man/woman to atone for their sin. If they accept His sacrifice. He had to die. It's not about the fact that He died. It is that He is risen. He conquered death so that we might conquer death also. Meaning we have everlasting life through Jesus sacrifice.

Answer 4

Jesus was a perfect creation of God's.He did not have to die.He offered himself to do his Fathers will.
It was because Jehovah and Jesus loved mankind so much that they both went to these great lengths to save man from enslavement to sin and death,which was a result of Adam's disobedience and rebellion in the garden of Eden.Adam too was a perfect man and had he obeyed his Creator he could have pasted on perfection and eterrnal life to all his offspring.But instead we all suffer,whether it be cancer,aids etc,we all age and eventually we all die.
Christ came to earth as a perfect man to offer up that perfect life as a ransom sacrifice to undo the effects of Adamic sin.
Those of us who exercise faith in that ransom have the opportunity to have our sins forgiven and ultimately have the opportunity of everlasting life.
John 3:16,17:3

Answer 5

Did these people with cancer take on all the sin of the world; past, present and future? Were they without sin to be the perfect sacrifice? The reason he died was for my and your sins.

Answer 6

Jesus voluntarily came down from heaven, which is arguably a much better place than earth, to spend 33 years living in a relatively powerless flesh body, in Nazareth, which was, even back then, a real "backwater" of civilization.

Then, he endured all kinds of personal abuse, torture, and death, even though he was totally innocent, and deserved none of it.

That's a true sacrifice, any way you look at it.

Answer 7

Christians glorify his death by saying it was a sacrifice. He was merely a prophet of God who died for preaching the word of God, not the Son of God. Whenever you hear Jesus say something like God been his father, he is refering to all humans being the children of the Lord, and he is our shepard.

Answer 8

Have you ever been beaten with whips,vinager pour over your bloody body,,He carried all of our sins and this is what you have to say...SACRIFICE,,he died for you and you treat him this way...shame,shame..

Answer 9

Who is this Jesus you write about?
Is it Jesus the Two Thieves as the writing on the two crosses identified them?
Jesus started on the crosses that were borne by two thieves and the Gospels take it up from there and then decided to complete the Hoax of the crucifixion by re-naming the sone of the virgin with the announcement of Zeus the Angel of Matthew and Luke.

To say that Jesus was crucified would be wholly true according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John of the New Testament of the Bible, and this would depend on the true identity of Jesus.

To say that the Messiah or Christ was crucified would definitely be false and misleading and contrary to the claim of the Quran, and the evidence of Scripture as contained in the Bible.

The name of Jesus is a New Testament name that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, so that the Old Testament of the Bible disagrees with, or, it cannot be said to be in total agreement with this name that is used to identify the Messiah in the New Testament.

The four Gospels are the claimants of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and they are the Gospels of the crucifixion by four, that is to say, that they are used in repetition of the alleged crucifixion, but they are certainly not the Gospels of the fulfillment of the prophecy of the child as named in the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel of the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) of the Old Testament of the Bible.

Two of the four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) make mention of the naming of the infant Messiah with the name of Jesus, which name defies the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).

Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfillment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be.

The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)

The command of the Lord (Isaiah 7:14) made no mention of father or spouse or husband, but the angel of the Lord effects a major adjustment to the plan of the Lord with the inclusion of Joseph, the spouse. Matthew introduces a pregnant wife who appears to be guilty of attempting to conceal her pregnancy from an annoyed and angry husband who harbors thoughts of putting her away. (Matthew 1:18-20)

Having cast aspersions on the character of the virgin with an uncharacteristic version of Scriptural fulfillment of prophecy, and with an atmosphere of mistrust, Matthew creates yet another annulment of the prophecy with the statement that, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18)

While Joseph slept, the so-called angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and in an attempt to lend Heavenly approval to the scandalous affair, the virgin birth that was the promised “Sign” from “the Lord Himself” (Isaiah 7:14) became the official child of the Holy Ghost, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew I: 20)

“Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Matthew 1:24-25)

The Gospel of Matthew opens the New Testament of the Bible with all of the confusion and doubt and conjecture that is spoken of in the Quran, in the lead up to the quadruplicating of the hoax of the crucifixion of the Messiah.

Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)

Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) and the insertion of JESUS.

Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.

Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:

·One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
·In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
·On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).

We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.

We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.

Muslims are aware that Angels do not disobey the commands of the Lord. The prayer that states, “Thy will be done in Heaven, so in earth,” (Luke 11:2) indicates that the will of the Lord is honored by those in Heaven, which questions the existence of angels assuming the role of mischievous and disobedient messengers.

Faith in the power of the Quran will lead us to even more uncertainty in the reports from the Gospels of the Crucifixion, about the identity of the of the Messiah and the Jesus of the cross, of which Allah reveals as a magnificent hoax in which the Messiah surely was not the victim.

Amen!